Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explicitly reassures that archiving is not deletion ('not away') and points to the restoration path. This is valuable context that complements the destructiveHint=true annotation and clarifies the practical consequence of the action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences deliver the core action, the reversible nature of the operation, and the related navigation/restore tools with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and lifecycle-related sibling tools, the description is complete: it tells what the tool does, where the archived item goes, how to find it, and how to reverse the action. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter ('id' with a clear source hint 'from list_custom_data'), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'by ID' reinforces the schema, but the schema carries the semantic weight, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Archive'), a specific resource ('a custom-data dataset'), and the mechanism ('by ID'), so an agent can immediately identify the operation. It also distinguishes this from the many sibling archive_* tools by explicitly naming the custom-data resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear lifecycle context: the dataset moves to the archive, is visible via list_archive, and can be recovered via restore_from_archive. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name a non-archive alternative, but the intended use case is well implied and the sibling resource names make differentiation straightforward.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.